Orr v. Knowles
Decision Date | 29 July 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 82-752,82-752 |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Parties | G. William ORR, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Donald L. KNOWLES et al., Defendants. M. John EPP, M.D., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Charles THONE et al., Defendants. |
Lawrence I. Batt and Thomas P. Kenny of Garber & Batt, Omaha, for plaintiffs Orr et al.
Michael T. Levy and Michele Wheeler of Levy & Lazer, P.C., Omaha, for plaintiffs Epp et al.
Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., and Frank J. Hutfless, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for defendants.
Before KRIVOSHA, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, WHITE, HASTINGS, CAPORALE, and SHANAHAN, JJ.
This matter comes before us pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-219 (Cum.Supp.1982) as 18 certified questions of law from the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. The main thrust of these questions is a request that we interpret Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-347 (Cum.Supp.1982) as it stands, and in light of other relevant provisions found under Nebraska law.
Section 28-347 reads:
This statute has been attacked by the plaintiffs, two physicians and several pregnant minors. In considering its constitutionality, the U.S. District Court certified the following questions to this court for decision:
1. "Will the duties and responsibilities of a guardian ad litem who may be appointed for a minor under the authority of Section 28-347(2) be coextensive with those of an attorney representing a minor in the judicial proceeding authorized by that section; if not, in what respects will the duties and responsibilities differ?"
A review of Nebraska law indicates that there is no clear statement of what the duties or role of a guardian ad litem is. Several Nebraska statutes dealing with minors provide for the appointment of guardians ad litem.
In cases involving termination of parental rights, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 42-364(4) (Reissue 1978) provided in part as follows: This statute was changed in 1982 and now provides that whenever termination of parental rights is placed in issue, the District Court shall transfer jurisdiction to a juvenile court unless a showing is made that the District Court is a more appropriate jurisdiction. "If no such transfer is made the court shall forthwith appoint an attorney as guardian ad litem to protect the interests of any minor children." § 42-364(4) (Cum.Supp.1982). We do not believe that this amendment significantly alters the nature of the duties of the guardian ad litem as provided for in the earlier statute.
Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-104.06 (Reissue 1978) provides for the appointment of a guardian ad litem for children in paternity actions. That statute states: "Only upon the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the child, and a finding that the claimant is a fit person, is able to properly care for the child, and that the child's best interests will be served by granting custody of the claimant, shall custody be granted to the claimant." Again, under this statute it seems the guardian ad litem is to somehow participate in the determination of what is the best interests of the child.
Generally speaking, a guardian ad litem appears to be an individual who steps into the position of the minor and, after considering the alternatives, asserts the right of the minor as the guardian ad litem sees fit. Discussing the role of such a guardian, it has been stated:
43 C.J.S. Infants § 234 at 610 (1978).
It seems from these statutes and this general discussion that the role of a guardian ad litem is something akin to the role of an attorney acting as legal counsel, but it is somewhat different. The Code of Professional Responsibility establishes that an attorney must zealously represent the wishes of his or her client. See Canon 7. It is not the role of an attorney acting as counsel to independently determine what is best for his client and then act accordingly. Rather, such an attorney is to allow the client to determine what is in the client's best interests and then act according to the wishes of that client within the limits of the law. EC 7-7.
In response to this first question, based upon the above discussion, we feel the duties and responsibilities of a guardian ad litem, as provided under § 28-347(2), are not coextensive with those of an attorney who might represent a minor in proceedings under this section. A guardian ad litem is to determine the best interests of the minor without necessary reference to the wishes of the minor.
2. "Is the filing of the petition for judicial waiver the 'initial proceeding' as that term is used in Section 28-347(2)?"
On the face of this statute it appears that a minor seeking to terminate her pregnancy has two options: first, to notify her parents, or, second, to obtain a court order stating she is mature enough to decide the question of whether her pregnancy will be terminated or not. In pursuing this latter course it seems she must petition the court for such an order. The statute states: "The court shall expedite all proceedings filed by a minor pursuant to this subsection and shall render a decision within twenty-four hours of the initial proceeding on such petition." (Emphasis supplied.) § 28-347(2). Giving this section its plain meaning, it would seem that this initial proceeding on the petition would occur sometime after the filing of the petition. To have a proceeding on the petition, the petition certainly must be already filed.
In addition to the fact that a straight reading of § 28-347(2) supports this view, to require or interpret it otherwise would be impractical. If the filing of the petition was the "initial proceeding" in this matter, a decision of the court would have to be forthcoming within 24 hours of that filing. As a practical matter this would be difficult if not impossible for the courts to comply with. This would mean the filing of the petition, the hearing on the petition, and the decision of court would all have to occur...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Petition of Anonymous 1
...questions certified to us by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska with regard to a predecessor statute, Orr v. Knowles, 215 Neb. 49, 337 N.W.2d 699 (1983), and thus not addressed therein, I begin by recalling that an appellate court has both the power and duty to consider on......
-
In re Guardianship L.H.
...the client's confidences, disregarding the client's wishes, and even presenting evidence against him or her”); Orr v. Knowles, 215 Neb. 49, 53, 337 N.W.2d 699 (1983) (“The Code of Professional Responsibility establishes that an attorney must zealously represent the wishes of his or her clie......
-
In re Corson
...ad litem be appointed to represent such condemnee.").8 Courts in other states reached similar conclusions. See Orr v. Knowles, 215 Neb. 49, 337 N.W.2d 699, 705 (1983) (stating that "[i]n short, the legal guardian is not the same as the guardian ad litem, as provided for in this statute."); ......
-
Billups v. Scott
...attendant to that office. Such determination necessarily requires a review of the role of a guardian ad litem. In Orr v. Knowles, 215 Neb. 49, 337 N.W.2d 699 (1983), we distinguished between the role of such a guardian and that of an attorney and noted that the duties and responsibilities o......
-
1-5 Third Predicate: Attorney's Negligence as Proximate Cause of Loss
...954 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1984).[248] Boyd v. Brett-Major, 449 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1984) (quoting Orr v. Knowles, 337 N.W.2d 699, 702 (Neb. 1983)).[249] Boyd v. Brett-Major, 449 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. 3d Dist. Ct. App. 1984).[250] Lawyers Prof'l Liab. Ins. Co. v. McKenz......
-
Turning girls into women: re-evaluating modern statutory rape law.
...supra note 177, at 288-89. For examples of early judicial bypass cases, see In re Mary Moe, 446 N.E.2d 740 (1983); Orr v. Knowles, 337 N.W.2d 699 (1983). (210) Belotti II, 443 U.S. at 630. The Court, moreover, instructed, "The judge `must disregard all parental objections, and other conside......
-
Brief of the Attorney General of the State of Nebraska in Stenberg v. Carhart(*).
...dozen questions certified by federal courts, over half of which arose in the context of a single abortion case. See Orr v. Knowles, 337 N.W. 2d 699 (Neb. (11) The district court in the present case specifically acknowledged that "Virginia's partial birth abortion law is nearly identical to ......